( 1 ) THE challenge in this revision is against the conviction and sentence that came to be passed against the petitioner/original accused for the charges in connection with a vehicular accident, by invoking the aids of the provisions of Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("code" for short, hereinafter ).

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present revision may, shortly, be stated at the outset. The petitioner herein is the original accused who was tried for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Secs. 279, 337, 338 and 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Secs. 116, 112 and 89 of the Motor vehicles Act, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dehgam, in Summary case No. 531 of 1982.

( 3 ) IN that it was alleged that the accused, who was in-charge of a Jeep car No. GTG 7848, on 19-2-1982, at about 10 a. m. was driving the Jeep Car in a rash and negligent manner on Dehgam-Modasa Road. When the said Jeep car reached near village Palaiya, the accused/petitioner lost control over the vehicle because of excessive speed. Consequently, the vehicle went off the road and knocked down three persons out of which one child died and Mangabhai ramabhai and his sister-in-law Ratanben Dhulabhai, sustained injuries of varying gravity and also fracture injury. Deceased Jabu was one year old at the relevant point of time. Thereafter the Jeep Car driven by the petitioner/original accused dashed against a wada and entered into the wada and after crossing the wada, it rushed into another wada and dashed with a bullock, which died on account of the injuries. One Hirabhai Shankerbhai filed complaint and investigation was carried out and the accused/petitioner was charge-sheeted and thereafter he was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Dehgam, as aforesaid. The learned Magistrate, by his judgment and order dated 9-6-1983, convicted the accused for the commission of the offences under Secs. 304 (A), 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Secs. 89, 112, 116 of the motor Vehicles Act. For committing the offence under Sec. 304 (A) of the Indian penal Code, the learned Magistrate imposed R. I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 500. 00 and, in default of payment of fine, S. I. for 15 days. For committing the offence under Sec. 279 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate imposed R. I. for three months and a fine of Rs. 500. 00 and, in default, S. I. for 15 days. For the offences punishable under Secs. 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate imposed R. I. for three months on each count and also a fine of Rs. 200. 00 each and, in default, S. I. for 15 days each. No separate sentence was imposed for the offences under Sec. 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Magistrate was also pleased to impose a fine of Rs. 100. 00 and, in default, S. I. for 10 days for committing offence under Sec. 89 read with Sec. 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by the learned magistrate, at Dehgam, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1983 in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Narol. That appeal was partly allowed. the conviction was confirmed. However, the Sessions court was pleased to reduce the sentence and instead of six months R. I. for the offence punishable under Sec. 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code, it was reduced to three months. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the sentence passed for the commission of offence under Sec. 338 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he was pleased to cancel the sentence imposed for committing the offences punishable under Secs. 337 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence this revision application.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has, vehemently, urged and formulated two points for determination in this revision as follows : (1) That the Courts below have erred in recording the findin